Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

The case is before the Authority on a negotiability appeal
filed by the Union under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and
involves five proposals.

Proposals 1 and 5, which require management to provide
certain safety clothing and equipment to employees who operate
motorcycles on the facility, are nonnegotiable. Proposal 2,
which requires that the Agency provide storage containers for
the motorcycle safety equipment and that the Agency be
responsible for the safekeeping and maintenance of the
equipment, is negotiable except for that portion which requires
management to maintain the equipment. Proposal 3, which
requires the Agency to provide facilities for employees to
change into and out of the required protective clothing, is
nonnegotiable. Proposal 4, which requires the Agency to place
employees in a paid status while they are changing into and out
of the required protective clothing, is nonnegotiable.

II. Procedural Issues

The Agency asserts that the Union's petition for review
does not comply with 5 C.F.R. § 2424.4(a)(1) because it "does
not contain the express language which the union sought to
negotiate with the agency and which the agency declared
nonnegotiable." Statement of Position at 1. The Agency claims
that the proposals in the petition for review are similar, but
not identical, to the proposals the Agency previously declared
nonnegotiable. In particular, the Agency argues that Proposal
2 has been modified to include a new provision which provides
that "management will be responsible for the safekeeping and
maintenance of required motorcycle equipment." Id. Therefore,
the Agency asserts that the Union's negotiability appeal is
deficient and should be dismissed. The Agency has, however,
submitted arguments concerning both sets of proposals, and with
one exception, has declared both sets to be nonnegotiable.

We have reviewed both sets of proposals and, with the
exception of the second part of Proposal 2, find that the
proposals declared nonnegotiable by the Agency are not
substantively different from the proposals in the Union's
petition for review. Instead, the latter proposals are merely
a restatement of the earlier proposals. Accordingly, we reject
the Agency's request that the petition be dismissed. In
addition, although Proposal 2, as modified, differs from the
proposal declared nonnegotiable by the Agency, the Agency has
fully expressed its position on that part of the proposal.

As the proposals are not different in substance and as
both parties have fully expressed their positions on them, we
find that the petition for review is properly before us. SeeAmerican Federation of Government Employees, Local 2429 and
U.S. Department of the Air Force, Headquarters Space Systems
Division, Los Angeles, California, 38 FLRA 1469, 1471 (1991)
(second proposal held to be a restatement of an earlier
proposal and properly before the Agency). CompareAmerican
Federation of Government Employees, Department of Education
Council of Locals and U.S. Department of Education, 36 FLRA
130, 137 (1990) (proposal held to be substantively different
from proposal declared nonnegotiable and not properly before
the Authority).

III. Background

The proposals in this case were submitted in response to
an Agency decision to require all motorcycle riders on the
base, including bargaining unit employees, to wear or use
certain motorcycle safety clothing and equipment. Although
helmets, eye protection, and hard-soled shoes had previously
been mandated, the additional clothing required by the changes
included long-sleeved shirts or jackets, long-legged trousers,
full-finger gloves, and yellow or orange vests with
retro-reflective strips. In addition, the changes required
that all motorcycles be equipped with two rear-view mirrors.

IV. The Proposals

Proposal 1

All motorcycle protective clothing that is
required, except a helmet, will be provided by
Mare Island Naval Shipyard for use of the
employees at no cost to them. The employee will
provide the required helmet.

Proposal 2

The shipyard will provide storage containers at
the main gates for the motorcycle safety
equipment and will be responsible for its
safekeeping and maintenance.

Proposal 3

The shipyard will provide facilities for the
employees use to change into or out of the
required additional clothing.

Proposal 4

The employees are to be in a paid status while
changing into or out of the motorcycle safety
equipment by the Navy before or after their
normally assigned work hours.

Proposal 5

The shipyard will provide and install the second
rear view mirror that is required on the
employee's motorcycle if the motorcycle is
equipped with only one rear view mirror.

V. Positions of the Parties

A. The Agency

The Agency contends that Proposals 1 and 5 are
contrary to 29 U.S.C. § 668(a), 5 U.S.C. § 7903, and
certain decisions of the Comptroller General because they
require the Agency to expend appropriated funds for
protective equipment which is "not required for the
employee's protection in the performance of his or her
duties." Statement of Position at 4. The Agency
maintains that Proposal 1 is "identical in all material
respects" to the proposals held nonnegotiable in Federal
Employees Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO and Department of
the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California,
30 FLRA 275 (1987). Id. at 2.

With respect to Proposal 2, the Agency maintains
that being required to provide storage facilities "at the
gates" interferes with management's right to determine its
internal security practices under section 7106(a)(1) of
the Statute. Id. at 4. The Agency argues that because
the gates "are located inside the property line of the
installation[,]" Proposal 2 would permit the employees to
"rid[e] their motorcycles between the installation
property line and the . . . storage facilities located at
the gates without the required protective equipment." Id.
The Agency maintains that "[h]owever short this distance
might be, there can be no guarantee that an accident could
not occur during such a ride." Id. In addition, the
Agency asserts that the portion of the proposal relating
to storage facilities does "not pertain to conditions of
employment" under section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute
because it does not directly relate to the "employees'
work situations or employment relationships." Id. at 4-5.

With regard to the portion of Proposal 2 concerning
"safekeeping and maintenance," the Agency asserts first
that 5 U.S.C. § 7903 prohibits the Agency from either
purchasing or maintaining equipment that is not used in
performing employees' work. The Agency also argues,
however, that if the equipment were the employees'
personal property, that portion of the proposal which
"relates solely to the 'safekeeping' of the equipment . .
. would be negotiable . . . ." Id. at 8. On the other
hand, the Agency contends that the "safekeeping" portion
would be nonnegotiable if the Agency were required to
furnish the equipment. The Agency reasons that because
the equipment then would be the Agency's property,
proposals involving the safekeeping of the property would
interfere with its right to determine its internal
security practices.

With respect to Proposal 3, the Agency maintains
that proposals for "changing facilities . . . do not
pertain to conditions of employment" under section
7103(a)(14) of the Statute because they do not directly
relate to the "employees' work situations or employment
relationships." Statement of Position at 4-5. The Agency
notes that employees are not required to wear the
protective clothing while in a duty status or in the
performance of their work.

The Agency asserts that Proposal 4 interferes with
its right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of
the Statute because it precludes management from
"assigning any work to employees, while in a paid duty
status, when they are changing into and out of their
motorcycle safety equipment." Statement of Position at 6.
The Agency notes that an employee's decision not to wear
the prescribed protective equipment before entering the
Agency's facility "is a matter of personal choice . . . ."
Id.

B. The Union

The Union states with regard to Proposals 1 and 5
that "the only use for these items" is to satisfy the
Agency's requirements because none of the equipment is
"required to operate a motorcycle on the highways of the
state of California[.]" Petition for Review at 2. In
addition, the Union argues that the Agency imposed the
requirements "as a means of reducing benefits such as
workman's [sic] compensation and sick leave that are paid
to motorcyclists if they are injured while riding on Mare
Island Naval Shipyard." Id. The Union maintains that
"the greatest benefit is realized by the agency" and
payment for the equipment "would not be inconsistent with
law." Id.

The Union acknowledges that previous Authority
decisions are contrary to its position. However, the
Union maintains that unlike previous cases, the equipment
requirements in this case were instituted at the Agency's
"own initiation" and not "directed by higher authority"
under the Department of Defense Traffic Safety Program.
Id.

The Union offers no specific arguments with regard
to Proposals 2, 3 and 4.

VI. Analysis and Conclusions

In Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and U.S.
Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard,
Vallejo, California, 41 FLRA No. 13 (1991), the Authority
recently considered proposals and arguments identical to
those involved in this case. For the reasons discussed at
length in that decision, we find that: Proposals 1 and 5
are inconsistent with law and are nonnegotiable; the
portions of Proposal 2 concerning the safekeeping and
storing of the equipment are negotiable and the portion of
Proposal 2 which concerns the maintenance of the equipment
is nonnegotiable; Proposal 3 does not concern a condition
of employment and is nonnegotiable; and Proposal 4
directly interferes with management's right under section
7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute to assign work and, as the
Union does not claim that Proposal 4 constitutes an
appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3) of the
Statute, Proposal 4 is nonnegotiable.

VII. Order

The Agency must, upon request or as otherwise agreed
to by the parties, bargain on the portions of Proposal 2
concerning the storage and safekeeping of safety
equipment.(*) The petition for review concerning Proposals
1, 3, 4, 5, and the portion of Proposal 2 concerning the
maintenance of equipment, is dismissed.

FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)

*/
In finding these portions of the proposal to be
negotiable, we make no judgment as to their merits.